Libyan War : Political and strategic aspects

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 29 Oct 2011 08:19

All tinpot dictators will now be getting nukes because nukes guarantees that you are not beaten a dog's death or are hung by a kangaroo court

shyam · Post by **shyam** » 29 Oct 2011 11:06

Libyan leader's embrace of Sharia raises eyebrows

At a rally on Sunday in Benghazi, National Transitional Council leader Mustafa Abdul Jalil said, "As a Muslim country, we have adopted the Islamic Sharia as the main source of law. Accordingly, any law that contradicts Islamic principles with the Islamic Sharia is ineffective legally."

Jalil also suggested in his speech that he would like to see new Islamic rules implemented to limit how banks charge interest, and put an end to some of the Gadhafi-era restrictions on polygamy.

sumishi · Post by **sumishi** » 29 Oct 2011 12:38

Neshant wrote:...I predict the next country that will get a 'civilian protection' invasion will be UAE. They are sitting on a lot of money, foreign assets & oil. Plus they have a leader that is easy to get rid of.

I think next will be Syria, although on what pretext I dunno. They have not yet been successful supporting internal strife to unbalance the regime. The US ambassador to Syria has already been withdrawn.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Oct 2011 12:51

I was watching this morning Mani Aiyer and Swapan Das Gupta debate the Libyab/Arab Spring and India's approach to the crises.The West's hypocrisy,etc.Swapan tried to say that we should abandon our erstwhile Non-Aligned,non-interventionist approach and support nations who are/were our friends.Mani pointed out that in the Arab world,Saddam's Iraq and Gaddhafi's Libya ,two secular dictatorships, were the most pro-India of the entire lot and now,thanks to the west's military interventions,India has lost out totally in Iraq and may do too in LIbya.

Secondly,thanks to the west,we now have the vacuum of power being filled up with a host of extremist ungodly entities,who are far worse than the dictators they supplanted with the west's help! 10 years on in Afghanistan and an almost equal time in Iraq-more if you count GW1 as the first part of the conflict,the country is still in relativ chaos,reduced to relative penury,a shattered infrastructure,and the most orionic o all facts is that both in Afghanistan (Osama) and in Iraq (Saddam),the two individuals whom the US/west went for,were actually their bosom buddies,creations of the west! India should carefully look after itys intereest in West Asia without joining the coalition of the equally ungodly mercenary warmongerers who are spreading death and destruction nation after nation..

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 29 Oct 2011 16:40

Neshant wrote:
I predict the next country that will get a 'civilian protection' invasion will be UAE. They are sitting on a lot of money, foreign assets & oil. Plus they have a leader that is easy to get rid of.

Excellent spot! Thats exactly why when Bahrain protests kicked off, the rulers bought in around 1000 mercenaries quietly via Erik Prince (similar to what gaddafi did). Lots happened quietly with the "liberals" deciding to play things down. 2 people are on trial already. All the tribal chiefs were called in and asked to pay homage to the rulers.

The UAE rulers were very worried about their position and seemed really nervous that the US will target them. They are breathing a huge sigh of relief at the moment.

Syria next. I think Iraq possibly next summer.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Oct 2011 16:44

When will this hagiographical mythological propaganda about Gaddafi being "India's friend" and "secular" to boot - stop? On this forum - I have posted giving explicit quotes about what Gaddafi had said about "Kashmir" in a speech in an international forum.

Those who are in love with Gaddafi - perhaps tried to explain it away as "realpolitik", pretension, play-acting. What for? to please whom? why did Gaddafi feel the need to please "them" over Kashmir? if such an attitude was mere pretension - why is not any other statements or shenanigans being given the "pro-India" spin - also pretension/real-politic/play-acting?

What makes Gaddafi "secular"? Do we really know what his actions have been on the ground? Did he ever attack or delegitimize Islam and its institutional authority? How much did Gaddafi's "laws" really differ from "sharia"?

In India, we have a tendency to declare anyone "secular" as long as he does not show any sympathy to the "Hindu", or is a self-roclaimed "leftist", and as long as he/she makes the appropriate favourable noises in favour of the dynasty and the congrez.

Anyone who supports - or feels the need to overtly support - the Islamic separatist movement in Kashmir valley - cannot be spinned into "pro-India" and "secular". This shameless propaganda in favour of the congrez dual deception where Islam and Muslim is concerned - must be dropped. On the one hand - Islam and Muslim and Islamic is inherently peaceful, constructive, rational and a positive contributor to India and Indians -contributing to and shaping Indian "civilization" beyond any other culture. On the other there is utter panic dancing around like a headless chicken - shouting about how big bad "Islamic" regime is taking over countries.

Its time this extremely dishonest playacting of hiding the implacable hatred of the Muslim under a cover of overt extreme whitewashing of Islamic, be dropped. If the system is so good inherently, its "good" must be inherently dominant and manifesting itself - no? Why this panic at Libya turning more overtly "Islamic"? It will enrich its civilization and culture - no?

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 29 Oct 2011 16:50

India's position (as well as that of PRC/Brazil/South Africa/Russia) is that the western countres shouldnt use the UNSC to back regime change in any 3rd world/developing country. Today Libya, tomorrow Kashmir/Tibet/Xinjiang/Beijing?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Oct 2011 16:54

The Bahraini monarchies are no more saints than those who oppose them. I would celebrate one bunch of Islamists going for the jugular of another bunch. Yes, yes, I will be chastized about the need to think of consequences on Indian expats. But Islamics are tolerant of non-Muslims among their midst, isnt it? Also the thousand year intensely lovey-dovey relationships between India and the Gulf must triumph over short term distractions. [In fact such relations continued in much more brutal and unstable times]. I am sure - as long as the money flow continues, the "growth+investment+prosperity" banner can be fluttered - there will be no problems from Indian ruling regimes! Even if a few Indians get thrashed up. Money, money, money - brighter than sunshine, sweeter than honey. As long as it continues to come from the Gulf - everything else can be swallowed.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Oct 2011 16:56

Destabilizing a country using UNSC is an entirely different argument compared to raising the fear of "Islamic" regimes taking over countries. The first one is less contradictory to the propaganda about the inherent peaceful constructive nature of the theology and its supposed attitudes or contributions towards India.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 29 Oct 2011 17:04

brihaspati wrote:The Bahraini monarchies are no more saints than those who oppose them. I would celebrate one bunch of Islamists going for the jugular of another bunch.

Of course. Let them slug it out. Whatever happens there, is that they need us more and keep TSP on a leash. Which is great for us! BTW there is a 400 year old Hindu temple there that the FM takes hindu officials to visit.

Yes, yes, I will be chastized about the need to think of consequences on Indian expats.

and oil. Like I said during that time. Whether we deploy or not in reality, the offer to deploy makes for good friends and whether you like it or not the 5 million or so indians there need to protected and they contribute economically to our country.

But Islamics are tolerant of non-Muslims among their midst, isnt it? Also the thousand year intensely lovey-dovey relationships between India and the Gulf must triumph over short term distractions. [In fact such relations continued in much more brutal and unstable times]. I am sure - as long as the money flow continues, the "growth+investment+prosperity" banner can be fluttered - there will be no problems from Indian ruling regimes! Even if a few Indians get thrashed up. Money, money, money - brighter than sunshine, sweeter than honey. As long as it continues to come from the Gulf - everything else can be swallowed.

Things aren't always ideological and about how islamics are tolerant of non muslims etc. When you have a list of options on decisions, you choose the least Bad one. There is no emotions when decisions are made in defence of the country. What you will realise is that the decisions made would not be different to those made by NDA or any other party for that matter.

Development is number 1 priority at the moment.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Oct 2011 17:24

Yes, the trick is to be able to present decisions as inevitable and unavoidable. For this a careful study is needed to highlight those factors as supremely important that helps such "inevitability". Below that cover much smaller narrower interests as well as ideological commitments or perceptions of small subgroups or coteries can be protected.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 29 Oct 2011 18:52

True for things that matter - like D gang, Swiss Tax treaties etc, financial related stuff that matter directly to the Gandhi's. Not true for defence, foreign policy etc unless there is an overlap of D co and other things of consequence. Nothing ideological too it.

Whats your take on why CENTO arrangment countries didn't fight india back in the day when Pak asked for help? Afterall, they were islamic countries and dont they all want a piece of non islamic india?

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 29 Oct 2011 19:41

Cento was mostly an american plant. Their agenda was infiltrated by anglo-americans from the beginning. Turkey back then was content to follow american direction b/c of russian fear. As such turkey iraq and iran, back then were in no position to move beyond the constraints imposed by americans. And as such islamics have learned enough to not show their hand unless they are assured of victory. Cento was never an example of what islamics do when they have the upper hand.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 29 Oct 2011 22:17

And? Weren't we after all Soviet allied? Great, all the islamics had to do is to tell US that India was a pro Soviet power, we can take them over and install a pro-US govt. Would they have objected?

Besides the minimum they could have done was each give 10k troops (Iran had sent 4k to a small part of Oman to combat the dhofar rebellion)- with associated artillery,tanks, latest US weapons/AF planes. Afterall it was a mutual defence pact. Why didnt they?

Neither of them moved provided serious support, the US had to threaten us with nukes.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 29 Oct 2011 22:35

Shyamd ji i am a little worried. You are making disjointed arguments at best? India's pro-sovietness was known to US. They didnt need the islamics to tell them anything. As such what makes you think the US wanted to take the chance of "invading" india. Were they ever stupid enough to open hostilities against a country as big as india. According to you, india was just sitting around to be taken over. You are making cheap arguments without any grounding in reality.

US preferred an india that was manageable. Why would they risk increasing india,s militarism as against the status-quo which was manageable for them?

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 29 Oct 2011 22:44

devesh wrote:Shyamd ji i am a little worried. You are making disjointed arguments at best? India's pro-sovietness was known to US. They didnt need the islamics to tell them anything.

The assertion was made that islamics want to invade India given the opportunity. There was an opportunity in 1971. THey could hve sold the war to the US if they really believed in taking over non-islamic countries or at least tacitly supported pakistan.

As such what makes you think the US wanted to take the chance of "invading" india. Were they ever stupid enough to open hostilities against a country as big as india. According to you, india was just sitting around to be taken over.You are making cheap arguments without any grounding in reality.

This is exactly the point I am trying to make to Brihaspati! He thinks that India will be taken over!

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 30 Oct 2011 00:03

Cento in 1971 was in no position to invade anybody. You are exaggerating. The debate was about gaddaf's so called secularism. You are the one making strawman arguments about cento. The point was that dictators have been adept at using the existing islamist networks and keeping them alive for their advantage. This record doesnt make them secular.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Oct 2011 00:19

It takes quite a bit of logical obfuscation to equate intention with actual "being taken over"!

"Intention" was mentioned for Islamic powers about extending their respective theological sectarian control and help Islamic proselytization in preparation for future opportunities of actual invasions or "taking overs". In one smooth sweep that then has been transformed into a claim of "actually taken over". Thats a good one.

CENTO is a funny bit of history not always explored properly. Why and how and when should be pretty illustrative. Moreover, the propaganda is that India had gone over to the Soviet camp. At best it was a divided polity at the centre of power - only one of whose temporary dictators had made a tactical alliance with the then USSR regime. That the country - or ruling setup had not been taken over by the Soviets was proved immediately after by a penalty goal awarded against the dictator. India was the muddy field on which both sides put in their proxy teams. In the first half - just before the mid-game break - one side had scored, but fearful of possible sabotage. It was an exhausted first half scorer team which agreed to a penalty score by the other side to end the game on a draw.

India - in the Soviet camp - with no US "influences" and "pulls" to balance out things? Its 40 years - so easy to reinvent!

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 30 Oct 2011 01:00

devesh wrote:Cento in 1971 was in no position to invade anybody. You are exaggerating. The debate was about gaddaf's so called secularism. You are the one making strawman arguments about cento. The point was that dictators have been adept at using the existing islamist networks and keeping them alive for their advantage. This record doesnt make them secular.

No the debate became about "ideology". FYI, this is what started the debate off: Link.

Fact is TSP on 2 occassions asked for CENTO's assisstance. 65 and 71. They had mutual defence treaties (even to this day) that Pak tried to exercise twice. Both times all the nations said no.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 30 Oct 2011 01:10

brihaspati wrote:It takes quite a bit of logical obfuscation to equate intention with actual "being taken over"!

Did you not say this in the West asia thread?

The logic is that if your neighbours are Islamic - they will forever nurse the ambition of oneday overrunning your orchard and backyard, slitting your throat, and taking over your home and any attractive female you might happen to have.

Islamics will do this - when you do not attack them - because their God promised all this to them as their birthright - just for the taking. If you resist them, then it goes against their theological birthright and hence they can do this anyway.

So allowing them to survive in peace does not buy you security. They will attack anyway. Only with peaceful treatment they get the time and resources they need to mount the attack more successfully.

So I asked you the question. Why didnt they all help to take over or at least provide some serious help when Pak was down in 71?

CENTO is a funny bit of history not always explored properly. Why and how and when should be pretty illustrative. Moreover, the propaganda is that India had gone over to the Soviet camp. At best it was a divided polity at the centre of power - only one of whose temporary dictators had made a tactical alliance with the then USSR regime.

See the arguments for intervention in Afghanistan. They were scared that if Pak got over run by soviets. I am sure you have heard it before.

India - in the Soviet camp - with no US "influences" and "pulls" to balance out things? Its 40 years - so easy to reinvent!

US were there yes, but in terms of leverage,, what did they have?

Anyway, this is a waste of time. Last post on this.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 30 Oct 2011 01:32

The key question to ask is if Turkey as ruled by the present Islam oriented politics is acceptable. Despite much violence Iraqi's have not shown even the smallest interest in moving wholesale towards a Mullahcracy.

I suspect most of these Islamic parties, outside of Egypt, take their inspiration more from the Turk model. The appeal of the Arab petro dollar states is past its sell by date. Iran is clearly detested passionately. These people want prosperity and a good life. Both are crippling obstacles to the spread of truly radical Islam. If you notice on TV no two individuals have the same idea of what Islam is and what its relationship to the state should be. As long as this conflict persists and consumes the religious passions of the general population the social direction tends to be moderate. In the modern secular west or even in India the conflict between Temple and state is always evolving and never resolved. The key is to prevent a take over of the state by a section of the Mullahs. As in TSP.

TSP is different in that large chunks of its population can not think for themselves and do not seek a better life. It is this over populated and empty minded garbage society that allows the spread of empty headed mullahism.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Oct 2011 01:40

shyamd wrote:
devesh wrote:Cento in 1971 was in no position to invade anybody. You are exaggerating. The debate was about gaddaf's so called secularism. You are the one making strawman arguments about cento. The point was that dictators have been adept at using the existing islamist networks and keeping them alive for their advantage. This record doesnt make them secular.
No the debate became about "ideology". FYI, this is what started the debate off: Link.

Fact is TSP on 2 occassions asked for CENTO's assisstance. 65 and 71. They had mutual defence treaties (even to this day) that Pak tried to exercise twice. Both times all the nations said no.

Even though the post is addressed to someone else, the "link" is to my post apparently: so what did I say ? :

But Islamics are tolerant of non-Muslims among their midst, isnt it? Also the thousand year intensely lovey-dovey relationships between India and the Gulf must triumph over short term distractions. [In fact such relations continued in much more brutal and unstable times]. I am sure - as long as the money flow continues, the "growth+investment+prosperity" banner can be fluttered - there will be no problems from Indian ruling regimes! Even if a few Indians get thrashed up. Money, money, money - brighter than sunshine, sweeter than honey. As long as it continues to come from the Gulf - everything else can be swallowed.

It is the bolded part which alone can be stretched into "ideology" - all else in that para is routine foreign policy/diplomatic chow, and is not specific to theology/ideology : we have millenium spanning, ancient, earth shattering affinity - we all used to trade peacefully, no politics, no military adventurims, no sponsoring of raids and invasions by sea which carried the banner of theology, no piracy, no coastal raids, no priracy and then blaming it on the other, etc etc. This is actually standard drill in many diplomatic vomits and not peculiar onlee to this part of the world.

But then why is the "bolded" part so much about "ideology" and not about practical claims made about the Gulf region so many times in so many ways - here on this forum? There have been veritable lectures on the persistent tolerance shown to Indians, especially non-Muslims, and examples thrown as to how "tolerance" has been shown in real terms [ places of worship/religious assembly etc]. So were those earlier claims made about supposed Gulf region Islamist regime shown tolerance towards non-Muslims - all about making "ideological" claims?

I do not see any logic as to why we have to split hair about this supposed "tolerance" claim being ideological or not! Is it true or not? That should be the main question! If the claim is false - lets hear it being said so clearly! That it was earlier made as an "ideological claim" or assumption not grounded in reality!

I have simply incorporated that claim into the "monetary" inevitability clause - to conclude that intra-Islamist mutual jabai should not affect Indian interests that much. This society has been claimed to be immensely tolerant of non-Muslims and Indians - so no fall out should be expected on Indian expats there. After all it will be a different bunch of islamics - but still islamics of the Gulf society, who should therefore by definition not be targeting Indians and Indian non-Muslims! Where is the reason to be so excited about "ideology" here!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Oct 2011 01:46

shyamd wrote:
brihaspati wrote:It takes quite a bit of logical obfuscation to equate intention with actual "being taken over"!
Did you not say this in the West asia thread?

The logic is that if your neighbours are Islamic - they will forever nurse the ambition of oneday overrunning your orchard and backyard, slitting your throat, and taking over your home and any attractive female you might happen to have.

Islamics will do this - when you do not attack them - because their God promised all this to them as their birthright - just for the taking. If you resist them, then it goes against their theological birthright and hence they can do this anyway.

So allowing them to survive in peace does not buy you security. They will attack anyway. Only with peaceful treatment they get the time and resources they need to mount the attack more successfully.
So I asked you the question. Why didnt they all help to take over or at least provide some serious help when Pak was down in 71?

CENTO is a funny bit of history not always explored properly. Why and how and when should be pretty illustrative. Moreover, the propaganda is that India had gone over to the Soviet camp. At best it was a divided polity at the centre of power - only one of whose temporary dictators had made a tactical alliance with the then USSR regime.

See the arguments for intervention in Afghanistan. They were scared that if Pak got over run by soviets. I am sure you have heard it before.

India - in the Soviet camp - with no US "influences" and "pulls" to balance out things? Its 40 years - so easy to reinvent!
US were there yes, but in terms of leverage,, what did they have?

Anyway, this is a waste of time. Last post on this.

I have consistently made the point that Islamics lie low, when they do not see the chance to win overwhelmingly, or they do not undertake adventures where they feel their entire militancy regenerating core may face wipe-offs. The Afghanistan situation has a little bit of build-up history that is not always discussed. Looking into that - it was a carefully laid out trap - and in reality, the "west" had started the plan with a some significant provocations to draw the Soviets in - years before the actual invasion. By the looks of how they went about it - they never had any fear of Pak being overrun - at least at that time.

It was the next step in the scheme of thinsg after the alliance with PRC had been completed and solidified by the end of the 70's. From 67-75 Mao had played ball, and US made sure that China would not help the Soviets out by raising the temp too much in the Pacific.

sumishi · Post by **sumishi** » 30 Oct 2011 08:33

US and Islamists: It takes two to tango: TOI, Oct 30, 2011
-- Brahma Chellaney (international security affairs analyst, author of 'Asian Juggernaut' and 'Water: Asia's New Battleground')

The west wants to control arab spring: TOI, Oct 30, 2011
-- John Pilger (writer and filmmaker)

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 30 Oct 2011 09:39

suryag wrote:We will get a new nigerian mail from now on saying "I am the lawyer of Libyan ex-president Gaddafi, and before he died he and i deposited money 2billion USD in a joint a/c in seycheles, if you are willing please send me 10% of the money and i can deposit the remaining 90% in your account.

Best regards,
Bangwa Bunga"

Nice one. Here is the mail I got

Dear,

My name is Alhaji Usman Yusuf, i am a nationality of Libya and presently
in United
Kingdom with my fund of $15,3M,United State Dollars,i am interested to invest
in your country and looking for a reliable local partner, who i can trust
with
my fund for upward investment,this person will be responsible to investing my
fund into a high yielding Capital Investment also will be responsible to
setting up the management company and running it.
My position is to be a Silent Partner to my partner.
Let me know so i can be able to direct my Attorney to contact with you and
discuss further details and planing also to sending you my proposed draft
Memorandum of Understanding, for you to study and understand more about my
proposal before we can schedule a meeting date for us to talk face to face
and
discuss more better .You can furnish me your Name,Address and Telephone
Number
for more discussion.

Regard,

Email:AlhajiUsman1-Yusuf1@LIVE.COM

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 01 Nov 2011 05:01

Dual U.S.-Libyan citizen chosen as prime minister of Libya

El-Keib, a resident of Tripoli, earned his PhD at North Carolina State University in 1984 and was a longtime professor at the University of Alabama. He joined the interim council last spring.

Colleagues said he was a technocrat who appealed to a variety of factions and was considered intelligent and charismatic. “He’s not from any ideological faction. He’s just a nationalist,” said Abdurrazag Mukhtar, a council member for Tripoli.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 01 Nov 2011 14:03

Libya is a good example of what happens to a small, soverign state with resources & wealth but not the means to defend it. Inevitably thieves, especially from Europe, show up to clean the place out.

The CIA prime minister of Libya takes the cake.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Nov 2011 10:51

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/model-van ... d=14857237

Vanessa Hessler, a blonde, long-legged 23-year-old Italian-American model, said that she had shared a "very beautiful love story" of four years with Mutassim Gadhafi, the 36-year-old son and heir of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi who died with his father in a last stand outside the Libyan city of Sirte on Oct. 21.

Hessler also said that the West had made a mistake in backing the rebels who ended Moammar Gadhafi's 42-year reign. "We, France and the United Kingdom, financed the rebels but people don't know what they are doing," Hessler told Italian magazine Diva e Donna, adding that she is disgusted by what is happening in Libya and that "the Gaddafi family is not how they are being depicted, they are normal people."

On Monday, Telefonica Germany fired Hessler from a job that had made her instantly recognizable to television viewers across Germany, France and Italy. For several years, Hessler had been known to the public as "Alice," the onscreen spokeswoman for the company's "Alice" internet service, but Telefonica declared an immediate end to the relationship with a Tweet. Telefonica said the model's romantic relationships were "private business," but the company "cannot accept her comments on the Libya conflict."

habal · Post by **habal** » 07 Nov 2011 13:23

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 09 Nov 2011 13:17

Hello,

I am Mohammed Turaki a secret financial aide to late Maumman Gaddafi i have a well detailed and secured business proposition for you since he is finally dead,
kindly view attachment for summary of business detail

Respecfully Submitted
Mohammed Turaki

Another spam I got in mail.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Nov 2011 21:33

Are you on someone's watch list that you are getting special e-mails! Get a new e-mail id.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 10 Nov 2011 10:06

ramana wrote:Are you on someone's watch list that you are getting special e-mails! Get a new e-mail id.

Ramana Garu thanks for idea. Its dataone.in mail id which has probably poor spam filters. I have simple strategy for such mails. Not to open attachment and delete it straightway. These caught attention as one member said now someone claiming to be from Libya would do such things, probably Nigerian.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 11 Nov 2011 14:55

Sirte Libya by the Sea Before and After Nato

I have put this compilation of video together to show you the beautiful city of Sirte, Libya before, and after the Nato bombings. Sirte sits right on the Gulf of Sidra.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 19 Nov 2011 23:02

Captured!!!

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 21 Nov 2011 03:09

well now that the main guys are either captured or dead, it is the right time to analyze which section of Libya gave birth to this movement. in all revolutions there is a crucial middle section which tastes just enough prosperity/power to dream of more. more importantly, now that "revolution" has happened, the next obvious step seems to be "stability". now, the new guys will try to solidify, or maybe there is bit more time for that?

either way, they need a strong support base among various factions/sections which can sustain their power and rule. space to watch: where do all the business contracts and employment deals go? where is there a clamor for more Islamist intervention? does Islamist SOP change or calibrate to a new reality? behavior of various factions in coastal areas will be a significant indicator of how things align? it is also a significant pointer of how Britain+France+US+Europe interests are aligned...

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 21 Nov 2011 09:38

devesh wrote:it is also a significant pointer of how Britain+France+US+Europe interests are aligned...

Germany is a wildcard, now that they have been sane enough to get rid of their EVMs.

habal · Post by **habal** » 21 Nov 2011 12:37

We need to tie in evm's with the wider conspiracy of new world order. Countries that work for interests of their population will find ways and means to avoid conning their own people. Germany is tied into the welfare driven thule_society model and by extension will have nothing to do with any oligarchic philosophy like new world order.

countries that have been corrupted or whose leaders have been corrupted and have no firm ruling pscyhology will find no harm in deploying evm's and other tools of subversion. Psychological indoctrination of the Indian ruling class is essential to tide over this new world order scenario.

the concept of democracy is just that. A concept. In practice, democracy doesn't work. The rule is always by a small clique at the top. They have a free hand in imposing their will on the subjugated 'ruled'. Now even the mode of selection of that clique is flawed.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 21 Nov 2011 12:51

habal wrote:We need to tie in evm's with the wider conspiracy of new world order. Countries that work for interests of their population will find ways and means to avoid conning their own people. ...

countries that have been corrupted or whose leaders have been corrupted and have no firm ruling pscyhology will find no harm in deploying evm's and other tools of subversion. Psychological indoctrination of the Indian ruling class is essential to tide over this new world order scenario.

Quite true. You should take a look at this thread - India and the New World Order

Upendra · Post by **Upendra** » 22 Nov 2011 18:31

Libyan rebels chopped off Saif al-Islam’s fingers?

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 28 Nov 2011 09:14

Leaked UN report reveals torture, lynchings and abuse in post-Gaddafi Libya - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 66636.html

Amazingly some folks here were supporting NATO on the basis of human rights. Others were supporting NATO on the grounds that Gaddhafi was an Islamist.

Now we have more Islamism, less human rights, and plenty of profits for the same folks who created and supported the nation of Pakistan.